This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Replace syncing to Google contacts and Google calendar with webDAV and calDAV to next cloud.
I run next cloud in my garage. DAVx is free from F-Droid app store. Setup is easy. And you don't need Google accounts to store contacts and calenda in your home cloud
Warning: It's Linus Sebastian
Thank you, I was about to click.
Drama llama response. 🙄
... on YouTube.
This is piped.
Which streams YouTube content. He posted it to YouTube, piped just removes ads from YouTube videos.
it also proxies the video and blocks trackers iirc, giving you some form of anonymity from Google
Right, but the point is that this is about de-Googling, and the video wast posted to a Google-owned site by someone who makes their livelihood from Google.
Piped and similar services are cool, it's just a weird conflict of interest.
It's arguably the best place to reach the people who most need degoogling
Is it though? How likely is someone who watches that video to actually degoogle? He uses windows almost exclusively (Microsoft tracks you), shows benchmarks from games with DRM, recommends products that track you (e.g. Meta headsets), etc.
I'm not saying it's bad that he's doing it, I'm just saying it's ineffective. How many of these products does he actually use? Why should I trust his recommendations if he's not actually living a degoogled life?
I see it as lipservice for views, that's it. If he was really serious about it, I think he'd make his videos available on other services (and not just floatplane, that's a money grab).
I trust Louis Rossmann far more, because he:
That last one is a little self-serving because he's pushing his app Grayjay, but paying for the app is optional and no features are locked behind paying.
So I'm not gong ri applaud LTT for making this video. The intent is to drive clicks and ad revenue. I don't think that's bad, I just don't think it's worthy of commendation. If you want a better mainstream channel for this, check out Naomi Brockwell. She's quite pleasant to listen to and covers far more than LTT or Louis Rossmann ever would.
I liked it except for that "ad blocking is piracy" shit he snuck in there
Isn't it? You're not paying for a service / product.
You should read a clockwork orange.
If they want money from sponsors and advertising they could do it without all the trackers.
That's the service's problem. VCRs and DVRs had ad-block ages ago, and those were commercial products sold at regular retail stores, so it's totally a non-issue.
An ad-blocker just means I'm not running optional extras. The web server says, "please display X, Y, and Z," and the ad-blocker says, "nah to Y and Z, but I'll render X." It's the same idea as safe-search filters to block websites, but it runs within "trusted" pages instead of just blocking certain domains.
It's the same with sponser blockers, but I personally don't use them and prefer to manually skip them instead unless the creator generally has good recs (e.g. I often watch them once/twice on Gamers Nexus, because they only recommend good products, but block the others).
Piracy is sharing content that you don't have the rights to share. Ad-block just blocks content you don't want to see. Those are not the same thing at all.
Piracy is sharing content that you don't have the rights to share.
I'd classify watching something on piracysite.com as piracy.
I'd also class bypassing Netflix's login requirements to watch their catalogue as piracy. But I guess that's more a semantics thing.
Sure, because in those cases you're gaining access to content that you don't have permission to access.
Ad-block isn't that, it's just blocking content you don't want. You still have permission to the content.
You don't have permission to modify any of the content YouTube sends you.
https://www.youtube.com/t/terms#eb887a967c
Section: Permissions and Restrictions Point 2
circumvent, disable, fraudulently engage, or otherwise interfere with the Service (or attempt to do any of these things), including security-related features or features that: (a) prevent or restrict the copying or other use of Content; or (b) limit the use of the Service or Content;
Yes, it's a violation of their TOS, but TOS is often illegal anyway.
I'm not modifying any of the content they send, I'm merely not rendering it. That's a very different thing. It's just like blocking fonts (I do that too), if I don't want an asset, I won't download it. If they want to block me because I'm blocking part of their page from loading, that's on them.
but TOS is often illegal anyway.
Piracy isn't only a legal thing. It's just dealt with through the legal system.
I'm not modifying any of the content
Sorry, I was wrong. You are however circumventing YouTube's playing ads.
Yes, I'm violating their TOS, but I also never signed their TOS agreement. I don't use a YouTube account, I just access their webpage. Nothing here is illegal, I'm just not rendering content that I don't want to see. I have no legal obligation here. Google doesn't get to decide what gets run on my machine, I do. If they don't want me to view their content, they should lock it behind a paywall or something.
I've not argued any of those points. Just that not watching ads on YouTube is piracy.
In the UK, piracy isn't a legally defined term, and the way that I would define piracy as the illegitimate procurement of media.
Right, and I'm arguing that it's not piracy. Piracy is a copyright violation, and blocking ads isn't violating copyright, it's only violating TOS. "Piracy" is the informal term for "copyright infringement," at least in my jurisdiction (US).
Here's a law stack exchange answer about it:
First the broad strokes: It's not illegal to block ads.
...
But... that doesn't mean your use of an adblocker isn't in violation of US law.
The crucial issue with legality when it comes to adblockers is less about blocking ads, and more about circumventing a websites measures to defeat adblockers.
So I might be violating the DMCA by circumventing protections on the website, depending on what exactly the ad-blocker is doing, but just blocking URLs isn't a copyright violation, it's a TOS violation, which may or may not hold up in court. Therefore, not piracy.
Half the time piped links won't work for me and the other half of the time the videos buffer incredibly slow.
I think it's not a good idea to leave links to Piped instead of YouTube (same for Nitter/Twitter, Libreddit/Reddit, etc.). If you want to avoid YouTube, then just install LibRedirect extension or similar. Piped links are temporary, they'll break sooner or later, making it difficult for people to get to the website.
The problem that I see is that all of these alternatives still rely on YouTube at the end of the day.
And the cost of setting up a new video hosting site that's free to consume content from is ridiculous.
Go on then, LTT. Delete your youtube account.
They are leading in the right direction. I think that's the important.
I disagree, he is just mad because he wants to keep all the ad money for himself and thinks YouTube is stealing his profit. This is the “ad blocking is piracy” guy afterall. There's not a single moral shred in that video, it's all patronizing and capitalist greed. He just wants to keep all the subscription money without having to share it with anyone.
Apparently they're going to address YouTube replacements in the second part of the series. Also I'm fairly sure they spoke about Youtube ReVanced a couple of times before.
They should have also mentioned GrapheneOS
I installed it one week ago after getting a new Pixel 8. Loving it so far.
I just installed it yesterday and it was super easy. So far I'm liking it, and I now have two profiles: Owner (main, no Play services) and work (has Play services for work apps). I'm still moving all my crap over, so I guess we'll see over the next few weeks if I run into issues.
Enjoy your spyware-free degoogled experience! Feel free to dm me if you have any questions. I'd say I'm quite experienced with GrapheneOS, degoogling and Android in general.
Thanks, I might just do that!
I've only had it a day, and I haven't even swapped my SIM yet (waiting for my case to be delivered), so I'll give it a couple weeks to really get a feel for things. I'm going on a road trip soon, and may be going out of the country, so if I'm going to run into issues, it's going to be soon. I'm also going to try using the eSIM to trial Google Fi (international data FTW, free for 7 days), so it should be a rather complete experience.
Google Fi is the one thing I have no experience with, as I'm not American. But all SIMs should work fine on Graphene, and eSIMs are supported through a compatibility layer, which enables Google's proprietary eSIM management tool (this is not the same as Sandboxed Google Play services, and you don't need Google Play for eSIMs). All the eSIMs and physical SIMs I tried work just fine. Google Fi seems to work, according to this thread on the Graphene Forum: https://discuss.grapheneos.org/d/7950-does-grapheneos-work-with-google-fi/6
Cool.
Since you're here, do you know if SIMs "just work" with different profiles? Can I restrict them to a specific profile? I'm guessing SIMs are a completely separate concept from profiles (which AFAIK just manages apps), but this is my first time with GrapheneOS.
As far as I can see, no. But what benefit would that really have? Network settings (including mobile networks) are global. The only thing that's profile-specific is your VPN setting. You can only disable a profile's ability to use the phone/SMS feature. Profiles generally manage apps, user data and some settings.
This was just part 1 with probably the lowest hanging fruits :)
Still glad they mentioned this topic at all. I wouldn't have expected it from LTT.
Anyone have an alternative video not narrated by a sex pest?
Why is he specifically a sex pest?
He's not. There were unsubstantiated accusations from a disgruntled former employee that were proved to be false.
Some people just hear what they want though.
He's not, there was accusations against him and his company from a former employee that were recently settled in court in favor of Linus, judged has having committed no wrongdoing.
Not settled in court. An independent law firm investigates the allegations. No court has touched this and likely never will.
